Bowling, Shriver, Gaither, Biser, Annan, Ste-
phenson, Gwinn, Brent of Baltimore city, Sher-
wood of Baltimore city, Schley, Fiery, John
Newcomer, Harbine, Michael Newcomer, Kil-
gour, Weber, Hollyday, Slicer, and Smith—34.
Negative—Messrs. Lee, Chambers of Kent,
Mitchell, Donaldson, Dorsey, Wells, Buchanan,
Colston, Crisfield, Dashiell, Hicks, Phelps, Gra-
son, Wright, McMaster, Hearn, Fooks, Jacobs,
Sappington, Thawley, Stewart of Baltimore city,
and Presstman—33.
So the blank was filled with $300.
The question then recurred on the amendment.
Mr. BRENT, of Baltimore city, expressed the
hope that the amendment would prevail. It
seemed to him but a small boon to give to the
family of deceased or insolvent persons. He ad-
mitted that cases might occur, even under the
terms of the proposition, where a family might
not obtain relief; but it seemed to him impossible
to lay down any other safe rule than this. It
would, however, operate upon the major part of
the hard cases of insolvency, and would rescue
from the grasp of a heartless and griping creditor
the small pittance of $300 for the benefit of his
family.
Mr. MITCHELL. It strikes me that if a man
owns a house he would be relieved under this
proposition, but that if he be a poor devil who
only rents one, (laughter,) he would not.
Mr. BRENT, of Baltimore city. The gentle-
man is entirely mistaken in his construction of
the proposition. And Mr. B. explained.
Mr. PRESSTMAN expressed his regret that the
proposition of his colleague, (Mr. Brent,) was
such as could not meet with his (Mr. P's.,) con-
currence. Far from it. He should be glad if
it did so. He did not believe that it would
be acceptable to the city of Baltimore, although
upon that point a difference of Opinion might
well be entertained. He referred to the report
which he had himself made. providing for the
abolishment of imprisonment for debt. This, he
thought, would be sufficient, relief.
If, in addition to this measure the Convention
should think proper to withdraw from responsibility,
the property of a debt or, to the extent of
three hundred dollars, it would bear upon the
working classes of the city, so as to cripple them
to a considerable extent. Hie referred to the case
of the law, of the operation of which, the distin-
guished gentleman from Anne Arundel, (Mr.
Dorsey,) had given his experience. That was
one of the most unpopular laws that ever went
into operation.
As regarded the proposition to abolish impris-
onment for debt, the barbarity of the existing
law, although that had undoubtedly had its
weight upon his mind, was not the prominent
consideration. He was in favor of doing away
with credit. He was in favor of permitting an
honest mechanic, when he did his work, to he
paid for it. He considered the law in its present
form, as "keeping the word of promise to the
ear, and breaking it to the hope." He was not
influenced by considerations, looking to the
debtor, so much as he was by the great interests
of the creditor, who was now deceived.—who |
expected to be paid, but, under the insolvent laws
was deluded.
The proposition of his colleague, he thought,
was open to many objections. He, [Mr. P.,]
proceeded to point out objections to its phrase-
ology. He suggested that it could not be con-
strued by the courts with any degree of certainty
—that it was indefinite, and might be construed
to mean not the immediate family only, but
grand-daughters and grand-sons, and all embrac-
ed in the legal term ''family," It made no dis-
criminations between meritorious and worthless
children; and was open also to other objec-
tions.
Desiring to stand right before the community, he
should feel constrained to vote against the
amendment.
Mr. MCMASTER moved to amend the proposition
by striking out the words "administration
or."
Mr. CHAMBERS rose, to present to the Conven-
tion an idea which had not yet been suggested,
and but for which, he would not have said a sin-
gle word. The hypothesis on which this amend-
ment has been defended, is, that when a heart-
less, griping creditor endeavors to oppress the
poor and desolate widow of a deceased debtor,
the law should interpose for her protection. On
this ground he would be one of the last men in
the world to raise an objection to it.
He would always be ready to interfere between
the hard and unfeeling creditor, who does not
want the money due to him, and the bereaved
widow, whom he attempts to oppress.
But he asked gentlemen who took this ground,
to look at the case in a more correct point of
view. When a poor man dies insolvent, is it to
be taken for granted, that his creditors are all
wealthy? Not at all. He buys his soap, his
candles, his sugar, and all his household neces-
saries, at some small store in his neighborhood;
and the person from whom he buys, is just as
poor as he himself is; that person too depends
on what is owing to him, as a means of keeping
up his supply, and when he suffers a loss, it bears
heavily upon him. He thought it was wrong to
permit this.
The law can lay its hand on the person, if liv-
ing, or it can take his property. But here the
person of the poor is rescued from the power of
the law, and this amendment casts off the poor
and suffering creditor from any chance of indem-
nifying himself from the property. The princi-
ple was antagonistic to the policy of our insol-
vent laws. It would also operate injuriously
on the poor, generally, because it would restrain
persons from giving credit to those who have but
small means.
If the creditor is just as poor as the debtor,
the one is as much deserving of legal protection
as the other. Why, would you take from a poor
man five dollars, and give it to another who is
equally poor, perhaps, but not more so than him-
self. He would willingly agree to any proposi-
tion where it could be made to appear that the
debt of the deceased insolvent was due to a mall
of ample means who would not suffer from the
loss, to relieve the widow from the oppression of |
